OscarMeyr wrote:
> I do not immediately see how R101 overrides R2173 regarding the
> disclosure of a private contract. I may have to reread the a-d
> archives, this'll teach me to delete emails!
The disclosure message was actually posted by ehird, and (if Duality
works as intended) also lega
At first glance:
Since ehird is NOT Ivan Hope CXXVII, only able to act for em, I may
reasonably disregard eir comments.
I do not immediately see how R101 overrides R2173 regarding the
disclosure of a private contract. I may have to reread the a-d
archives, this'll teach me to delete emai
Pavitra wrote:
> Simply put: persons make binding agreements; Agora makes those
> agreements into contracts, and eventually perhaps contests. The
> judgement for a question on equation is not even a contract.
Counterargument: R1742 says "Contracts are binding agreements
governed by the rules".
Pavitra wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, entitled "No unappealable judgements",
> with AI=1.7 and II=1:
>
> {{
> Amend rule 911 by inserting the text " of REMAND or REASSIGN" after
> "a judgement" in the second paragraph.
> }}
A judgement of REMAND or REASSIGN does not cause a judgement
For reference:
> == CFJ 1936 ==
>
> The judge in an equity case CAN make the equation a contest by
> stating it is one.
>
>
>
> Judge Murphy's Arguments:
>
On 5/21/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (As opposed, say, to prefacing an action with "on behalf
> of both of us, I hereby..." which is very clear).
Not if the order matters.
Inquiry cases: 1956-57, 1958, 1961, 1962
Criminal cases: 1951, 1963
Appeal cases: 1936a
In this time of emergency, I urge my fellow senators to consider
sitting up and volunteering for part of this case load.
On Wed, 21 May 2008, ihope wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That doesn't mean the someone else actually sent the message, which is
>> important for the infinite loop you're trying to establish.
>
> We weren't trying to establish an infinite loop;
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can send messages on someone else's behalf that say "I (someone)
> hereby send this message on someone else's behalf". That's fine, and
> it can have some legal effects as if the someone else sent the message.
> That doe
On Wed, 21 May 2008, ihope wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, what we have here is "sending messages as if I were you". That goes
>> beyond an action taken "on behalf", where there's no question on who
>> the message came from.
>
> Well, partne
On 5/21/08, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, partnerships are certainly capable of doing stuff, and they're
> most likely able to do stuff by announcement, which probably means
> they can send public messages, if their contract allows people to do
> that on their behalf. Likewise, ehird
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, what we have here is "sending messages as if I were you". That goes
> beyond an action taken "on behalf", where there's no question on who
> the message came from.
Well, partnerships are certainly capable of doing stuff
On Wed, 21 May 2008, ihope wrote:
> Well, what we have here is automatic acting-on-behalf. Acting on
> behalf, though not described in any rule, I think, has been around for
> a while, having been deemed possible by a CFJ. I think convention is
> that automatic stuff is acceptable as long as it's
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Other gratuitous counterargument:
>
> Since all we do in this game is "send messages", complete confounding of
> message=sending between two persons crosses the line found to be impossible
> to cross by CFJ 1895, specificall
comex wrote:
> O Goethe, why do you always quote your own judgements? :D
Because there are more of them? :)
cotc=# select p.name, count(*) from events e join events e2 on e.link =
e2.id join players p on e2.player = p.id join matters m on e2.matter =
m.id where m.typecode <> 'Appeal' group by p
On 5/20/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since all we do in this game is "send messages", complete confounding of
> message=sending between two persons crosses the line found to be impossible
> to cross by CFJ 1895, specifically:
>
>"It is a longstanding principle of Agora that fund
Zefram wrote:
> There would normally be a proposal distribution at this time, but
> there are no proposals to distribute.
Yes there are, you missed my Mad Scientist proposal in agora-official.
(I put it there because the rules state that the proposal may some day
retroactively turn out to have bee
17 matches
Mail list logo
